June Winrates

On July 01 2013 20:05 Ghanburighan wrote:
We've had a whole lot of P, T and Z win tournaments recently.

On July 01 2013 20:10 Tobblish wrote:


We have??

I find it really interesting that the MU are less balanced in Korea compares to the rest of the world.
Was the same in WoL if I'm not mistaken.

On July 01 2013 20:10 Tobblish wrote:


We have??

I find it really interesting that the MU are less balanced in Korea compares to the rest of the world.
Was the same in WoL if I'm not mistaken.

On July 01 2013 20:13 Pandemona wrote:
Arise of the Korean protoss!! Nice, winning every match up. Can't believe Zs have a slightly better win rate in TvZ though, thought Ts were still good.

(I only look at Korea win rates..)

On July 01 2013 20:12 Ghanburighan wrote:


Recently Stardust and HerO won tournaments. With sOs, First and Naniwa taking second.

On July 01 2013 20:12 Shellshock1122 wrote:

Stardust won Dreamhack and HerO won WCS AM

On July 01 2013 20:16 Clazziquai10 wrote:
HAH! Finally Terrans are no longer winning more than 50% of non-mirror matchups! In your face, hellbat haters! Looks like it won't be nerfed soon! XD

On July 01 2013 20:16 Clazziquai10 wrote:
HAH! Finally Terrans are no longer winning more than 50% of non-mirror matchups! In your face, hellbat haters! Looks like it won't be nerfed soon! XD

On July 01 2013 20:16 Clazziquai10 wrote:
HAH! Finally Terrans are no longer winning more than 50% of non-mirror matchups! In your face, hellbat haters! Looks like it won't be nerfed soon! XD

On July 01 2013 20:10 Tobblish wrote:


We have??

I find it really interesting that the MU are less balanced in Korea compares to the rest of the world.
Was the same in WoL if I'm not mistaken.

On July 01 2013 21:02 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I find it weird that protoss is statistically doing so well without ever winning anything at the absolute highest level. Not counting WCS AM because HerO was just better than everybody else.

On July 01 2013 21:00 DifuntO wrote:


If a hellbat nerf were to happen it would be cause of TvT not the other matchups.I'm pretty sure that's why we haven't seen any nerfs yet,they are trying to figure out how to do it without affecting TvZ and TvP much.

On July 01 2013 21:02 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I find it weird that protoss is statistically doing so well without ever winning anything at the absolute highest level. Not counting WCS AM because HerO was just better than everybody else.

On July 01 2013 21:10 MattD wrote:
Percentages don't mean that much, in WoL PvZ was close to 50%, doesn't mean it was balanced.

On July 01 2013 21:02 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I find it weird that protoss is statistically doing so well without ever winning anything at the absolute highest level. Not counting WCS AM because HerO was just better than everybody else.

On July 01 2013 21:17 Bagi wrote:

You're right, let us never discuss percentages again because WoL PvZ managed to keep is balanced while being utterly broken.

Seriously, take 5 minutes to check out the current meta and you'll know that none of the match-ups compare to WoL PvZ, making posts like this pointless.

On July 01 2013 21:23 DarkLordOlli wrote:


Not the place to discuss this. Not that I'd even care about your opinion if we discussed it anywhere else.

On July 01 2013 20:54 iyasq8 wrote:
what about lower level players win rate?

On July 01 2013 21:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:


I didn't say anyone had to care about it. The only one so far who took the time to be a jackass about my personal opinion was you. Good on you? Be proud.

On July 01 2013 20:36 Tuczniak wrote:
Wow, haha, that totally doesn't correspond from what I see in games .
I haven't thought zvp and pvt were so bad in korea, maybe those are just proleague maps.
Zvt is strange, maybe terrans haven't accustomed to roachbane busts yet. They should be again above 55% fast though.

On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.

HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now.

On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.

HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now.

On July 01 2013 21:37 robson1 wrote:


Haha. I don't trust the numbers because of the user name. Terran is clearly imbalanced. =D

On July 01 2013 21:19 Lonyo wrote:

Well, they kind of started to with stale swarmhost use every lategame for Z, but I don't recall seeing that so much more recently, so hopefully it's become less prevalent.

On July 01 2013 22:09 GhostOwl wrote:


I never said anything. I just said I don't trust the data. I do trust the numbers, but we don't know how he got those numbers.

On July 01 2013 22:15 ETisME wrote:
Problem is that win rate had always looked fairly balanced, other than some tvz mass ghost, 4 gate and initial few months of infestor change.
Even the so called imbalanced zvp had a fairly even win rate, balanced by immortal sentries all in and broodlord infestor deathballs

I think there are too many roach ling baneling all in style in TvZ right now

On July 01 2013 23:03 GeNi wrote:
Stardust won with 2 base all ins pretty much the whole tournament. I can't count that. So pretty much HerO is the only toss that has won using legit mechanics and macro and whatever

On July 01 2013 23:08 Sissors wrote:

So are we also gonna count that in tournaments? 'Yeah you did defeat him, but you didn't have 4 bases, so thats an all-in, which we really cannot count as a win'.

On July 01 2013 23:03 GeNi wrote:
Stardust won with 2 base all ins pretty much the whole tournament. I can't count that. So pretty much HerO is the only toss that has won using legit mechanics and macro and whatever

On July 01 2013 23:03 GeNi wrote:
Stardust won with 2 base all ins pretty much the whole tournament. I can't count that. So pretty much HerO is the only toss that has won using legit mechanics and macro and whatever

On July 01 2013 21:10 MattD wrote:
Percentages don't mean that much, in WoL PvZ was close to 50%, doesn't mean it was balanced.

On July 02 2013 00:15 larse wrote:
David Kim's method of balance: Only looking at Code S ro16 games onward and make the balance change.

He does this since 2010.

On July 02 2013 00:06 TheSir wrote:


this, it looks nice all this data but it doesn't say anything.

On July 02 2013 00:05 _Search_ wrote:
Wonder how much TvZ will change once Terrans figure out how to stop Roach/Bane all-ins...

On July 02 2013 00:24 aldochillbro wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would include proleague in these statistics, it's just illogical. These stats either mean something or mean nothing. when you put a metagame and sniping based proleague in there it most definitely means nothing. Looking at the real statistics(posted in this thread), the game looks really balanced. it's weird to see protoss's actually keeping up

On July 01 2013 22:15 ETisME wrote:
Problem is that win rate had always looked fairly balanced, other than some tvz mass ghost, 4 gate and initial few months of infestor change.
Even the so called imbalanced zvp had a fairly even win rate, balanced by immortal sentries all in and broodlord infestor deathballs

I think there are too many roach ling baneling all in style in TvZ right now

On July 02 2013 00:24 aldochillbro wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would include proleague in these statistics, it's just illogical. These stats either mean something or mean nothing. when you put a metagame and sniping based proleague in there it most definitely means nothing. Looking at the real statistics(posted in this thread), the game looks really balanced. it's weird to see protoss's actually keeping up

On July 02 2013 00:24 Quateras wrote:


You can't stop a roach bane all in with playing greedy, whatever you do to be able to hold it makes your build non greedy anymore and thus you aren't that far ahead in the midgame.
Its like saying : you cant wait for Zergs to figure out how to stop 11/11 rax when they would go 3 hatch before pool.
(every player not named Happy)

On July 02 2013 01:26 _Search_ wrote:



Or, more likely, they'll refine a certain technique that totally nullifies the major timings.

On July 01 2013 20:16 Clazziquai10 wrote:
HAH! Finally Terrans are no longer winning more than 50% of non-mirror matchups! In your face, hellbat haters! Looks like it won't be nerfed soon! XD

On July 02 2013 01:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Interesting to note that Aligulac's June report is quite different:

http://aligulac.com/reports/

TvZ is 52.6% winrate for Terran
PvZ is 49.5% winrate for Protoss
PvT is 48.3% winrate for Protoss

Same as always:
All Premier Tournaments
All Major Tournaments
All Direct Qualifiers to Premier Tournaments (this does not include Qualifiers for Qualifiers *only incl. later stages)
All Premier Teamleagues (GSTL, ATC and PL)
All Monthly Finals (Go4SC2 and Zotac Top 16, no weekly tournaments)

OSL
GSL
PL
OSL Qualifiers (Ro8+)
Kespa MLG Qualifiers (Ro16+)
GSTL
HSC VII KR Qualifiers (Ro16+)

On July 02 2013 01:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Interesting to note that Aligulac's June report is quite different:

http://aligulac.com/reports/

TvZ is 52.6% winrate for Terran
PvZ is 49.5% winrate for Protoss
PvT is 48.3% winrate for Protoss

On July 02 2013 01:50 keglu wrote:


And more accurate because of much bigger sample size.

On July 02 2013 01:58 Shellshock1122 wrote:
If you look at what TheBB said in this thread, though, the win rates are converging and we are at the most balanced state we've been in HoTS so far in terms of win rates.
+ Show Spoiler [Aligulac report] +

On July 02 2013 02:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.

On July 02 2013 01:52 BronzeKnee wrote:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?

In the end, this comes down an argument of what games to include. ChaosTerran "filtered" out some games, while Aligulac "filtered" out others. Something tells me Aligulac is far more objective, but that is something subjective that everyone can decide for themselves.


From the Aligulac FAQ:

How do you decide which games to add?
This question doesn't have an easy answer. We mostly decide this on a case-by-case basis. Generally we will add a round from a tournament if that round contains a significant number of already rated players. (Usually higher than 25% or so.) For the large regular cups this usually means somewhere around top 16 to 8.

One common exception to this rule is large national tournaments, which when rated would create a «rating bubble». We try to avoid this as best we can, but it's a difficult thing to do. We are more lenient with tournaments where a significant proportion of the participants regularly compete internationally (Korea, Germany, Poland and Sweden), or if the tournament is significant in another way (such as TeSL).

If a tournament isn't in the database, it could either be because we felt it didn't cut it, or it could just be we have missed it or forgotten. This work is done on a voluntary basis, after all. You could try asking us about it, or submitting it yourself.

The best way for the up-and-coming player to get an Aligulac rating is probably to play lots of open tournaments and LANs, and keep going at it until you reach a round with a fair number of notables.

On July 02 2013 02:24 SlixSC wrote:
The obvious answer is to filter out all amateur games and bottom of the food chain pro level games. Aligulac does a much worse job at that, simply because they include every game that could possibly be included. There is no filtering and if there is it is purely subjective and not based on set parameters.

It's important to note that a bigger sample size is sometimes detrimental to accuracy of your results. If you include samples that do not accurately reflect the data you are trying to compile, you are effectively wasting time because you are polluting your own data set with samples that of a different data set.

You don't look at BMW's to determine what the average acceleration rate of a Mercedes is. Likewise you don't look at amateur games to determine which race wins more games at the pro level.

Blackmailing the person responsible for these statistics is absolutely pathetic and you people should be ashamed for that, this is the 3rd time these win rates were released (april, may, now june) and the person is blackmailed now for the first time because the results do not match the expectations of the community, which is largely the result of communal reinforcement and the use of factoids which replaced actual facts a long time ago, especially on teamliquid.

On July 02 2013 02:24 SlixSC wrote:
The obvious answer is to filter out all amateur games and bottom of the food chain pro level games. Aligulac does a much worse job at that, simply because they include every game that could possibly be included. There is no filtering and if there is it is purely subjective and not based on set parameters.

It's important to note that a bigger sample size is sometimes detrimental to accuracy of your results. If you include samples that do not accurately reflect the data you are trying to compile, you are effectively wasting time because you are polluting your own data set with samples that of a different data set.

You don't look at BMW's to determine what the average acceleration rate of a Mercedes is. Likewise you don't look at amateur games to determine which race wins more games at the pro level.

Blackmailing the person responsible for these statistics is absolutely pathetic and you people should be ashamed for that, this is the 3rd time these win rates were released (april, may, now june) and the person is blackmailed now for the first time because the results do not match the expectations of the community, which is largely the result of communal reinforcement and the use of factoids which replaced actual facts a long time ago, especially on teamliquid.

On July 02 2013 02:24 SlixSC wrote:
The obvious answer is to filter out all amateur games and bottom of the food chain pro level games. Aligulac does a much worse job at that, simply because they include every game that could possibly be included. There is no filtering and if there is it is purely subjective and not based on set parameters.

It's important to note that a bigger sample size is sometimes detrimental to accuracy of your results. If you include samples that do not accurately reflect the data you are trying to compile, you are effectively wasting time because you are polluting your own data set with samples that of a different data set.

You don't look at BMW's to determine what the average acceleration rate of a Mercedes is. Likewise you don't look at amateur games to determine which race wins more games at the pro level.

Blackmailing the person responsible for these statistics is absolutely pathetic and you people should be ashamed for that, this is the 3rd time these win rates were released (april, may, now june) and the person is blackmailed now for the first time because the results do not match the expectations of the community, which is largely the result of communal reinforcement and the use of factoids which replaced actual facts a long time ago, especially on teamliquid.

On July 02 2013 02:24 SlixSC wrote:
Aligulac does a much worse job at that, simply because they include every game that could possibly be included.

On July 02 2013 02:34 BronzeKnee wrote:


Slow down here buddy. The source of the statistics is incredibly important. If you go to the NRA's website for information on gun control you're going to get different information than the Mayors Against Illegal guns. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which is why people who are interested in the truth often look to bi-partisan government studies and the ATF.

So I didn't blackmail anyone. I noted that we have two different sets of statistics for the same thing that show different results. I then stated that there could be a bias, as ChaosTerran is a Terran player, and his results show a low winrate for Terrans. This means that ChaosTerran might have an agenda, and the way he filters games could reflect that.

Aligulac doesn't seem to have an agenda.

Finally, this has nothing to do with community expectations (unless you were saying that the expectation of the community is for results of the same statistic to be the same when looked at by two different people, as they should be).

On July 02 2013 02:33 VmY wrote:

Could you please show some of these huge upsets? Because the games I'm seeing aren't exactly like the era of zergs in WoL, if it was we would be seeing 4+ terrans in every RO8 and TvT finals everywhere.

On July 02 2013 02:39 SlixSC wrote:
And why aren't we focusing on the methodology used to compile these stats? Including only pro level games is obviously a far superior method to including random games based on subjective evaluation. You haven't said anything to address this point, to no surprise I might add since you seem far to busy trying to blackmail the person responsible for these statistics.

On July 02 2013 02:41 BronzeKnee wrote:
Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.

On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.

This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?

On July 02 2013 02:41 BronzeKnee wrote:


Absolutely friend. From WCS America Season 1 Qualifiers:

Drunkenboi defeats Miya 2-0.

Demuslim defeats Jaedong 2-0.

Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.

On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:


Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence?

And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart.

On July 02 2013 02:50 SomethingWitty wrote:
...Terran is very clearly not dominating.

On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:


The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias.

That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.

On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart.

On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:


Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%.

On July 02 2013 02:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


-_-

You don't seem to understand. Our purpose is not to provide statistics or winrates, but to determine which players are the best and how good they are when compared to one another.

On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:


The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias.

That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.



Suppy and Moonglade are really, really good, and were before the release of HOTS. Suppy beat Polt in the CSL in WOL. Moonglade had often taken games off Koreans in WOL. Xenocider and Drunkenboi weren't names before HOTS. That was always the argument for the "patch Zerg" era, was that no name Zergs were coming up and defeating Korean Terrans.

But I'm not going to go into this anymore, it is subjective.

On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:


But you missed my point.

If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.


That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later.

Time to go to work.

On July 02 2013 02:57 SlixSC wrote:


Then why try and use your statistics to disprove these statistics, when the parameters are completely different and they serve a completely different purpose? That just doesn't make sense.

On July 02 2013 03:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


I'm not, you're the one who started harping on Aligulac for whatever reason, as if we had anything to do with this thread's topic. All I did was correct your blatantly incorrect and misguided nonsense.

On July 01 2013 22:17 Plansix wrote:
Arg, taking data from Proleague is always weird for this stuff. I wish people didn't include it. But it looks ok beyond that.

On July 02 2013 03:19 edgeOut wrote:
I wonder whether SC2 scene can ever talk more about map winrates rather than just pure race winrates.

On July 01 2013 20:45 n0ise wrote:
terran op nerf pls

On July 01 2013 23:03 GeNi wrote:
Stardust won with 2 base all ins pretty much the whole tournament. I can't count that. So pretty much HerO is the only toss that has won using legit mechanics and macro and whatever

On July 02 2013 03:19 edgeOut wrote:
I wonder whether SC2 scene can ever talk more about map winrates rather than just pure race winrates.

On July 02 2013 03:51 Little-Chimp wrote:
lol where are all these protoss wins coming from exactly? Proleague?
I feel like anyone who actually watches and understands the game recognizes that these stats don't mean much

On July 02 2013 03:39 dutchfriese wrote:



hellbat damage will still probably be reduced, but outside of that terran is completely fine.

On July 02 2013 04:03 _Search_ wrote:


The best thing is major nerfs combined with buffs and Blizzard seems to be heading in that direction with Banshee cost reduction.

Of course you can always count on Blizzard to take the worst option so likely nothing will change.

On July 02 2013 03:51 Little-Chimp wrote:
lol where are all these protoss wins coming from exactly? Proleague?
I feel like anyone who actually watches and understands the game recognizes that these stats don't mean much

On July 02 2013 04:22 Wingblade wrote:
Aligulac seems way more accurate than these stats put together by some guy on Reddit. Why these Reddit numbers are that much different from Aligulac I don't know, but Aligulac is presumably a much bigger project with more people cooperating on it than this guy on Reddit.

On July 02 2013 04:05 Plansix wrote:


Lets just hope that hellbats can take 3 shots to kill workers, not 2. 3 is still super lethal, but not so stupid that it will cause people to lose 14 workers in a single misclick.

On July 02 2013 04:59 TeeTS wrote:


If Oracles 3shot workers too, I'm totally on your side!

On July 02 2013 04:07 lorestarcraft wrote:
lol, p AND z beating t? Who believes this?? hahaha

On July 02 2013 05:04 Plansix wrote:

If they make hellbats cost 25 gas each, sure. Or Zealots get an AOE when they don't have charge. One of those two.

On July 02 2013 04:28 a176 wrote:
Wow protoss is imba. time to nerf hellbats.

On July 02 2013 05:05 krutopatkin wrote:

Yea, can this people please stop faking data, it's an outrage really.

On July 02 2013 05:25 Little-Chimp wrote:


Probably because those stats would actually reflect how the game looks in major leagues with the best players.
Keep up the persecution complex though terrans lol

On July 02 2013 05:34 Thrillz wrote:
Let's be honest, even if the stats were perfectly balanced for an extended period of time, people would still balance whine.

On July 02 2013 05:34 Thrillz wrote:
Let's be honest, even if the stats were perfectly balanced for an extended period of time, people would still balance whine.

On July 02 2013 01:03 TheDwf wrote:

Yeah, because preparing for your opponent and metagaming his style never happens outside of Proleague.

On July 02 2013 05:47 Tuczniak wrote:
It's not all about '%'. Even with 50% it can be imbalanced, mirrors for example. Races can be OP at certain parts of game, especially one being OP lategame isn't good because you are on clock and you can gg after x-minute. Also metagame shifts winrates, one allin being succesful doesn't mean matchup got suddenly balanced. It's just more complicated than 50/50 percents and there is more to talk about.

On July 02 2013 05:50 aldochillbro wrote:

In proleague you have people on the team that "snipe" players on the other team. this means that they have a carefully designed build that plays specifically to the other players weaknesses. this has much less to do with balance and more to do with preparation playing to the weaknesses of your opponent, not the actual races. and it's much different in tournaments where both players know their opponents because one person doesn't have the upper hand.

On July 02 2013 05:47 Tuczniak wrote:
It's not all about '%'. Even with 50% it can be imbalanced, mirrors for example. Races can be OP at certain parts of game, especially one being OP lategame isn't good because you are on clock and you can gg after x-minute. Also metagame shifts winrates, one allin being succesful doesn't mean matchup got suddenly balanced. It's just more complicated than 50/50 percents and there is more to talk about.

On July 02 2013 06:04 TeeTS wrote:


yeah, but then you should talk about both sides of the medal and not just one.
We have a discussion about a terran unit being OP, not about anything else.
Then I have to ask myself if Terran has an OP unit (Hellbat) and the other races not, how the fuck can winrates be that balanced? Are terran players retarded? They have this OP unit and are still even not winning even slightly more?
Makes absolutely no sense or?
So I just want to point out, that a hellbat nerf is needed, but there have to come other changes with it. And buffing Banshee cloak is the worst idea possible, since cloak on Banshees only plays a role in TvT, yay! (With protoss allways needing to have detection because of widow mine threat and Zergs ability to get spore crawlers with just a spawning pool).
Either you nerf down the harassment potential of all 3 races equaly, or you buff terran in another way significantly. Without terran winrates will drop abysmaly, like they did in may 2012, after queen patch came through without any compensation.

On July 02 2013 06:10 sibs wrote:


This would be true only if... Terrans weren't doing fine before the hellbat drop shenanigans started.

The new medivac + MMM is pretty f'in good harassment, hellbats doing 30 damage to light out of the factory is completely unnecessary.

On July 02 2013 05:50 aldochillbro wrote:
Yeah, because preparing for your opponent and metagaming his style never happens outside of Proleague.
In proleague you have people on the team that "snipe" players on the other team. this means that they have a carefully designed build that plays specifically to the other players weaknesses.

On July 02 2013 06:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


That's what I'm thinking.

Although I still don't understand why hellbats can be healed by a medivac, when they can already be repaired as mech units. Was there ever an official statement as to why it has both recovering abilities?

On July 02 2013 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Yeah I know lol. They're already hellbats though, which are made to counter zealots and other mass melee units via funneling. Not sure why they need the medivac healing them too.

But I can live with that in PvT I guess. Watching TvT hellbat vs. hellbat has just become boring to me, because it seems like it's not much of a risk to go hellbats... even one good drop out of four seems to deal huge damage.

On July 02 2013 06:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


That's what I'm thinking.

Although I still don't understand why hellbats can be healed by a medivac, when they can already be repaired as mech units. Was there ever an official statement as to why it has both recovering abilities?

On July 02 2013 06:40 JustPassingBy wrote:


The problem I see is that the moment you make them mechanical, the moment mech will be rolled over by immortals.
Not sure why stripping them from their biological status is a problem though. :/

On July 02 2013 06:40 JustPassingBy wrote:


The problem I see is that the moment you make them mechanical, the moment mech will be rolled over by immortals.
Not sure why stripping them from their biological status is a problem though. :/

On July 02 2013 06:40 JustPassingBy wrote:


The problem I see is that the moment you make them mechanical, the moment mech will be rolled over by immortals.
Not sure why stripping them from their biological status is a problem though. :/

On July 02 2013 06:42 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


I thought immortals did bonus damage to armored, not mechanical. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here...

On July 02 2013 05:25 Little-Chimp wrote:


Probably because those stats would actually reflect how the game looks in major leagues with the best players.
Keep up the persecution complex though terrans lol

On July 02 2013 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Yeah I know lol. They're already hellbats though, which are made to counter zealots and other mass melee units via funneling. Not sure why they need the medivac healing them too.

But I can live with that in PvT I guess. Watching TvT hellbat vs. hellbat has just become boring to me, because it seems like it's not much of a risk to go hellbats... even one good drop out of four seems to deal huge damage.

On July 02 2013 06:25 TheDwf wrote:

You mean like Polt did a Hellbat/Marauder all-in against HyuN because he knows HyuN rarely opens with mutas? Or like Suppy tried to 6 pool Polt because he knows Polt often CC first? Or like jjakji went a 2-bases timing against Scarlett because he knows she never over sac? Like SjoW and FanTaSy went Hellbat drops into bio against Life because he virtually always plays with lings, rarely conceding Roaches? Like TaeJa went Hellions/Banshees against TLO because he knows TLO is an agressive player? None of those matches occurred in the Proleague. People prepare specific builds or strategies all the time against players with a known style or some typical things in their play. Proleague certainly emphasizes this but it does not make results completely irrelevant solely due to this.

On July 02 2013 06:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


That's what I'm thinking.

Although I still don't understand why hellbats can be healed by a medivac, when they can already be repaired as mech units. Was there ever an official statement as to why it has both recovering abilities?

On July 02 2013 06:52 Zarahtra wrote:

Hellbats are healable for the simple reason that archons can actually kill them. If it wasn't for that, protoss didn't really have a good way to deal with them(atleast vs mech). As a mech terran, I'd consider it a huge buff for myself if hellbats were no longer bio.
Medivac healing in the great scheme of things is imo very minimal if the protoss is not playing very greedy. Ofcourse medivac healing in TvZ is completely different.

On July 02 2013 11:41 HuKPOWA wrote:
Problem with using this as a balance thing...is...protoss has highest win %...yet what has protoss won lately?

On July 02 2013 11:47 Lunareste wrote:


Dreamhack. 2nd at WCS Grand finals.

On July 02 2013 12:28 HuKPOWA wrote:


1ST PLACE at one event while others races have 2-3 like i said,,,

On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:


Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?)

What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.

On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:


Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother?

Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest.

Which is why I suggested this:


And TheBB delivered.

http://aligulac.com/reports/

And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error.

On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:


That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones.

On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:


The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better.

Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs.

On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:


The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better.

Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do.

On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz wrote:


But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways.

On July 01 2013 20:05 Ghanburighan wrote:
As I posted in the DB thread, I'll repeat here:

A pretty low number of games. Around 300 per MU. I would have expected more fluctuation due to the numbers.

The Korean sub 100 MU's show's greater fluctuation. But still remains roughly balanced.

Nice to see all the MU's are nicely balanced, and that's roughly the feel you get from watching tournaments too. We've had a whole lot of P, T and Z win tournaments recently.

Thanks to ChaosTerran.

On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:


Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =(

As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though.